evaluation of products that protect concrete and

Report No. CDOT-2006-4 Final Report

EVALUATION OF PRODUCTS THAT PROTECT CONCRETE AND REINFORCING STEEL OF BRIDGE DECKS FROM WINTER MAINTENANCE PRODUCTS William S. Caires, CET

Stanley R. Peters, P.E.

Construction Technical Services

December 2006

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BRANCH

ii

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who

are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented

herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official

views of the Colorado Department of Transportation or the

Federal Highway Administration. This report does not

constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

i

Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. CDOT-2006-4

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

5. Report Date December 2006

4. Title and Subtitle EVALUATION OF PRODUCTS THAT PROTECT CONCRETE AND REINFORCING STEEL OF BRIDGE DECKS FROM WINTER MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) William S. Caires, CET Stanley R. Peters, P.E.

8. Performing Organization Report No. CDOT-2006-4

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

9. Performing Organization Name and Address Construction Technical Services 7108 S. Alton Way, Suite B Centennial, Colorado 80112

11. Contract or Grant No.

13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report, October 2004-December 2005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Colorado Department of Transportation - Research 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. Denver, CO 80222 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

Study # 80.15 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is faced with a conflicting challenge: (1) provide winter driving safety, which is enhanced by applying effective deicers such as magnesium chloride and (2) provide a durable, cost-effective transportation system, which is adversely affected by these same deicers. While nationwide research is underway on the effects of magnesium chloride, CDOT must continue deicer application, and simultaneously design, build, and maintain durable structures before this research is complete. This study was initiated to develop performance-based testing procedures to aid CDOT’s concrete selection and protection process. The study was also to evaluate commercially available products developed to resist deicer deterioration in parking garages, which may extend the service life of concrete bridge decks, and lower their life-cycle costs. Two parameters were tested that are significant to bridge deck and steel deterioration: chloride intrusion (that causes corrosion in the reinforcing steel), and loss of surface abrasion resistance (wear). Implementation: The results of this study indicate that surface abrasion testing can readily be implemented on both laboratory samples and on field projects, to assess the resistance of various concrete mixtures and coatings to vehicular traffic wear. The rapid chloride permeability test proved valuable to assess the resistance to chloride penetration of these same concrete mixtures and coatings. This test can also be used on laboratory and field-based samples.

17. Keywords concrete abrasion resistance, chloride intrusion, C1202 rapid chloride permeability, magnesium chloride, ponding

18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report) None

20. Security Classif. (of this page) None

21. No. of Pages 89

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

EVALUATION OF PRODUCTS THAT PROTECT

CONCRETE AND REINFORCING STEEL OF BRIDGE

DECKS FROM WINTER MAINTENANCE PRODUCTS

by

William S. Caires, CET, Principal and Stanley R. Peters, P.E., Sr. Engineer of

Construction Technical Services

Report No. CDOT-2006-4

Sponsored by the Colorado Department of Transportation

In Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

December 2006

Colorado Department of Transportation Research Branch

4201 E. Arkansas Ave. Denver, CO 80222

(303) 757-9506

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the various product manufacturers

provided funding for this study. The laboratory work began at Lafarge North America’s Western

US Laboratory, where concrete specimens were fabricated using approved CDOT mix designs as

the baseline concrete. Lafarge helped bring a commercially-available approach to this product

evaluation that we desired. Very special thanks go to Matt Nilsen who coordinated Lafarge’s

mixture modifications with the various manufacturers, mimicking what would normally occur in

practice. Substantial help and support to this research were provided by the research oversight

committee chaired by Naser Abu-Hejleh and including Greg Lowery, Rich Griffin, Matt Greer,

Gary DeWitt, Ahmad Ardani, Ali Harajli and later Glenn Frieler. Special thanks to Greg Lowery

(formerly with CDOT), who championed this study. Thank you all.

iv

Executive Summary

CDOT is faced with a conflicting challenge: to provide winter driving safety, which is

enhanced by applying effective deicers such as magnesium chloride, and provide a durable,

cost-effective transportation system, which is adversely affected by these same deicers.

While there is research underway nationwide on the effects of magnesium chloride on

concrete, especially “first year” concrete placed in the fall months, CDOT needs to continue

applying magnesium chloride for public safety, and build and maintain durable concrete

structures before the findings and recommendations of the nationwide, long-term research are

known.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to identify commercially available products and/or systems

that could readily be utilized to improve the durability of CDOT's bridge decks in resisting

the effects of deicing products. Construction Technical Services (CTS) was to determine

physical effectiveness and relative costs, whereas CDOT would later determine cost

effectiveness of the options. Many commercially available products have been developed for

special concrete applications, such as parking garages, which increase the concrete’s

resistance to deterioration caused by magnesium chloride and other deicing salts. While

these products add to the initial cost of the concrete, they are often considered cost-effective

in increasing the service life of the structure, or at least reducing premature deterioration.

Several of these products were tested in comparison to four CDOT bridge deck systems. The

principal mechanisms of bridge deck failure are surface deterioration and corrosion of the

reinforcing steel, due to chloride ion intrusion. The principal tests utilized in this study were

resistance to surface abrasion, rapid chloride permeability (RCP), and long-term ponding

with full strength magnesium chloride solution.

v

IMPLEMENTATION

The results of this study confirm the performance of the baseline CDOT bridge deck

mixes/systems, indicate some new products that show promise for implementation, and

suggest that combinations of products might be the best approach to protection for Colorado

bridge decks exposed to deicing chemicals. One of the products evaluated (Degussa's

Degadeck) is being considered for a trial bridge deck near Eagle, Colorado.

This study has also shown the ability of the rapid chloride test American Society for Testing

and Materials (ASTM) C1202 to quickly evaluate the effectiveness of coatings and surface

treatments available to CDOT. The ASTM C1202 test results correlated well with the

chloride penetration results of the traditional ponding test, for both topical and integral

materials. The advantages of the ASTM C1202 evaluation re both time savings and the

flexibility of testing core samples from in-situ treatments. Multiple products could be

applied to a particular bridge deck as test patches, cored and tested by ASTM C1202 to

determine the most cost-effective treatment. The time-related effectiveness of the treatment

could also be evaluated, as well as determining when additional applications are warranted as

part of a preventive maintenance program.

This study has led to the modification of standard testing for chloride ion content, and

suggests that a third mechanism of bridge deck deterioration (surface cracking, either

shrinkage or flexural) should be considered in future studies for more durable bridge deck

systems.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 CDOT Baseline Mixes and Systems..............................................................................................................1 1.2 Commercial Products Evaluated....................................................................................................................3

2.0 TESTING PROGRAM....................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Sample Preparation........................................................................................................................................5 2.2 Conventional Testing and Results .................................................................................................................6 2.3 Study-Specific Testing and Results ...............................................................................................................6

2.3.1 Rapid Chloride Permeability (RCP) Test, ASTM C 1202 .....................................................................6 2.3.2 Resistance to Surface Abrasion, ASTM C779, Procedure C .................................................................7 2.3.3 Long-Term Ponding and Chloride Ion Content, AASHTO T259 and ASTM C1218 ...........................8

2.4 Test Results..................................................................................................................................................10 2.4.1 Summary Table....................................................................................................................................10 2.4.2 Individual Mix and System Results, with ASTM C779 Graphs ..........................................................11

3.0 COST ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 12

4.0 THRESHOLD LIMITS OF CHLORIDE ION CONTENT ......................................... 13

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 14 5.1 Abrasion Resistance.....................................................................................................................................14 5.2 Rapid Chloride Permeability .......................................................................................................................15 5.3 Chloride Ion Content by Ponding ................................................................................................................16

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................. 18

7.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 19

8.0 APPENDICES................................................................................................................... 20 8.1 Summary Table of Laboratory Test Results ................................................................................................20 8.2 Individual Mix and System Results, ASTM C779 Graphs ..........................................................................21 8.3 Manufacturer’s Information on Proprietary Products ..................................................................................58

8.3.1 Micron3 ...............................................................................................................................................58 8.3.2 Type K Cement....................................................................................................................................61 8.3.3 Caltite...................................................................................................................................................63 8.3.4 Hycrete.................................................................................................................................................66 8.3.5 DegaDeck ............................................................................................................................................68

8.4 Definitions and Acronyms ...........................................................................................................................73 8.5 Photographs of Laboratory Testing .............................................................................................................74

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Numerous concrete additives and protection systems have been developed to prolong the useful

life of concrete parking structures. Several of these products and systems were tested in

comparison to four current CDOT bridge deck systems to evaluate their effectiveness.

The principal mechanisms of bridge deck failure are surface deterioration, and corrosion of the

reinforcing steel due to chloride ion intrusion. The test parameters evaluated in this study were

resistance to surface abrasion, rapid chloride permeability (RCP), long-term ponding with full

strength magnesium chloride solution, and water soluble chlorides. The objectives of this study

are to compare the effectiveness of these products in reducing surface deterioration (surface

abrasion resistance before and after ponding with deicers) and reduction of chloride intrusion

(rapid chloride permeability and chloride ion testing at various depths). Some preliminary unit

cost information was obtained within the scope of this study, but the final life-cycle cost analysis

of these products will be evaluated by CDOT.

1.1 CDOT Baseline Mixes and Systems

The primary concrete mix design tested was CDOT’s Class D concrete. Class D is a

dense, medium-strength structural concrete, with a cementitious content range of 615 to

660 lbs (6.5 to 7.0 sack equivalent). Fly ash substitutions of up to 20% (with Class C) or

30% (with Class F) are allowed. Typically Class F fly ash is used when the aggregate

constituent tests positive for potential ASR, based on the CDOT modified ASTM C1260

test (CP 4202). An approved water-reducing admixture is required to meet the maximum

water-cementitious ratio of 0.44. Total air content range is between 5% and 8% for this

concrete using a ¾” nominal maximum aggregate. The required minimum 28-day

compressive field strength is 4,500 psi. Since the aggregates used in all testing were not

prone to potential ASR problems, Class C fly ash was utilized in all concrete mixtures

tested, as currently allowed by CDOT specifications.

Two of the four CDOT baseline mixes tested incorporated currently specified coatings

placed topically on the base Class D concrete. First, CDOT’s standard bridge decks are

2

constructed utilizing Class D concrete covered with an approved asphaltic membrane

(AM) covered by a protective felt paper protecting the membrane while paving, then

covered by a hot mix asphalt (HMA) wearing course. This study incorporated the asphalt

membrane and protective paper, installed by an approved CDOT contractor. The CDOT

approved contractor (ABCO) applied these materials to both the primary concrete panel

and the ASTM C1202 rapid chloride permeability (RCP) specimen. The second CDOT

baseline system tested involved a coating of high molecular weight methacrylate

(HMWM) placed on the concrete test panels upon completion of the specified curing

period. HMWM coatings are required when surface cracks are encountered in a concrete

deck, prior to the application of the asphaltic membrane (AM) in the field. Attempts to

purposely induce plastic shrinkage cracks, by forcing air across the surface of the test

panel were partially successful but not as prevalent as desired to verify the depth of

penetration into the cracks.

The final CDOT baseline concrete mixture tested was Class H concrete with silica fume.

Class H is intended for bridge decks that will not receive coatings as described above.

Cementious contents required are: 450-500 lbs of Type II Portland cement, 90-125 lbs of

fly ash (type not specified), and 20-30 lbs of silica fume; total content of these three

components shall be 580-640 lbs. The required minimum 56-day compressive field

strength is 4,500 psi. The laboratory mixture must not exceed 2,000 coulombs at 56 days

as determined by the ASTM C1202 RCP test, and shall not exhibit a crack within 14 days

when tested by the crack tendency test (AASHTO PP34). Since this Class H mix design

had previously passed the crack tendency test, this test was not repeated for the purpose

of this study.

An additional CDOT concrete mixture was included with this study. The Rocky

Mountain Concrete Promotion Council funded testing of Class B concrete, which

observations made on construction projects indicate it may be less resistant to deicer

applications than Class D or Class P concretes, both with higher strength requirements

(4,500 psi and 4,200 psi) and minimum cement contents, and maximum water-to-cement

(w/c) ratio of 0.44 for both mixes. Conversely, Class B requires only 3,000 psi for field

3

strength, has a minimum cement content of 565 lbs/CY (6.0 sack), has no specified w/c

ratio, but similar 5-8% air content requirements. In fairness, Class B applications are

mainly in flatwork applications. Therefore, on-site water additions are common to

facilitate placement and finishing characteristics. However, in doing so, placing practices

often decrease the Class B’s resistance to deicer attack. Class B commonly achieves

3,000 psi or greater based on laboratory tested cylinders even as field placement practices

of adding water continue.

1.2 Commercial Products Evaluated

Micron3 is an ultra-fine Class F fly ash, produced by air classification to an average size

of three microns. It is used commercially as an alternate to silica fume, where low

permeability and greater resistance to chloride penetration is required. It does not create

the “sticky” surface of the concrete paste that makes silica fume mixtures relatively

difficult for contractors to finish.

Type K is shrinkage-compensating cement used to control or eliminate shrinkage cracks

in bridge decks and other structural slabs, where cracks or control joints are detrimental.

Caltite is a liquid integral water-proofing admixture added to concrete during batching.

Manufacturer claims indicate that Caltite provides freeze-thaw resistance to concrete

without entrained air.

Hycrete is an integral water-proofing admixture. Its chemistry creates entrained air. A

de-foaming agent is utilized to control the air content to levels desired.

Two late entries to this program came from Degussa. Degussa’s silane sealer product

was initially tested for chloride permeability and surface abrasion tests to determine how

it compared to the Class D panel coated with HMWM. While the silane outperformed

the HMWM in the RCP test and offered significantly better abrasion resistance, Degussa

4

decided to enter the full evaluation process with their DegaDeck MMA bridge deck

overlay system and the silane sealer was discontinued.

DegaDeck MMA is “a rapidly curing methacrylate reactive resin formulated as an

overlay and traffic wearing surface for concrete structures”. It is applied in a three-part

process, including small, highly abrasion resistant aggregates, embedded in and sealed

with the methacrylate resin, resulting in an overlay layer approximately a quarter-inch

thick. It reportedly has been used by several western state Departments of Transportation

(DOT), with up to 20 years of service.

One manufacturer’s surface coating system began the initial evaluation but dropped out at

the 3-month period, in accordance with the study panels’ agreements, when it was found

not having any significant advantages over other products being tested.

More information of these products can be found in Appendices 6.3.1 through 6.3.5.

CTS did not review nor confirm any of the information provided by the manufacturers,

but included them for the convenience of the readers of this research report.

5

2.0 TESTING PROGRAM

2.1 Sample Preparation

Since the intent of this study was to evaluate the performance of commercially available

products, the baseline CDOT samples were fabricated using currently approved CDOT

Class D and Class H mix designs produced by Lafarge. In an effort to maintain

consistency in the eight Class D panels determined for testing, CTS purchased a half-

truckload of Lafarge’s CDOT Class D mixture. Class H and Class B concretes were

batched in a laboratory mixer according to the current CDOT approved mix designs.

With the exception of requiring one additional person to assist finishing the eight Class D

panels, all test panels were finished by Mr. Peters to provide as much surface consistency

as possible.

Product panels other than the CDOT panels were included for comparison. Lafarge’s

Class D mixture was used with modifications as necessary in accordance with the

manufacturers’ recommendations. Class H was the starting point for the Micron3

product evaluation. Any and all concrete mixture adjustments were made by Mr. Nilsen

of Lafarge.

A sufficient number of 4” by 8” test cylinders were fabricated for RCP and subsequent

compressive strength testing. The test panels for ponding and abrasion testing measured

22” by 32” by 3.5” thick. Test panels for Class H, Micron3 and Type K concretes were

wet-cured for 14 days, per both CDOT and manufacturer’s recommendations. All other

panels received a double application of a liquid curing compound from CDOT’s

approved products list. A mat of #3 reinforcing bars were placed at mid-depth in the

Type K test panel, to provide the initial restraint to expansive forces, as recommended by

the manufacturer’s representative. The Type K mixture had a higher w/c ratio than the

Class D specification permits (0.48 vs. 0.44 maximum); this was recommended by the

manufacturer to provide sufficient moisture to aid the cement hydration during first seven

days.

6

The Class B mixture was developed to a 3.5” slump at a w/c of 0.48 (without utilizing a

water reducer normally added by Lafarge). In hindsight, additional water should have

been added to achieve a greater than 4” to 6” slump, better replicating the field mixtures

that often have problems.

In an effort to simulate a bridge deck construction worst-case scenario (opening to traffic

within two weeks, and deicer application within another two weeks) the research

oversight committee agreed to terminate curing within two weeks and begin ponding

operations within four weeks of panel fabrication. Termination of the three wet-cured

panels was straightforward. The liquid curing compound was removed at 14 days by

light sand blasting. The topical coatings, AM, HMWM, and DegaDeck MMA, were

applied to the sandblasted surfaces. One Class D panel was saved as a control, without

ponding.

2.2 Conventional Testing and Results

The fresh property test results, the actual mix designs used, and compressive strengths are

listed individually in Appendix 8.2 and collectively summarized in Appendix 8.1. Class

D achieved its highest strength by 56 days, whereas most of the other mixtures continued

to show modest strength gains from 56 to 168 days. Base-level chloride ion contents

were based on drilled samples from test cylinders cast from each mixture.

2.3 Study-Specific Testing and Results

2.3.1 Rapid Chloride Permeability (RCP) Test, ASTM C 1202

Samples for this test were obtained by sawing off the top 2 inches of test cylinders

that were wet-cured for 14 days and then allowed to air-dry for an additional 14

days prior to sample preparation. This designed short curing period retarded the

hydration of the test panels and ASTM C1202 test specimens; resulting in higher

permeability and coulombs passed than would normally have been achieved if

standard 28 or 56 day curing had occurred based on previously published test

7

data. As previously mentioned, manufacturer’s representatives and ABCO

installed the various topical coatings submitted for testing. The results of Class D

were based on the average of two specimens tested; a single sample was tested for

all other mixes. ASTM C1202 reporting requirements include listing the

(relative) Chloride Ion Penetrability, as found in the test procedure’s Table 2.1,

summarized below:

Table 2.1 - Relative Chloride Ion Penetrability Levels

Charge Passed (coulombs) Chloride Ion Penetrability

> 4,000 High

2,000 - 4,000 Moderate

1,000 – 2,000 Low

100 – 1,000 Very Low

<100 Negligible

These test results and relative chloride ion permeability are reported individually

and summarized collectively with the conventional testing results.

2.3.2 Resistance to Surface Abrasion, ASTM C779, Procedure C

The ASTM C779 test procedure involves abrading the concrete surface with eight

hardened steel balls held in a retaining ring mounted on a drill or coring rig. The

abrading process is completed by loading the abrasion rig to a net weight of 27

pounds (total pounds force on abrasion surface), rotating the abrasion head using

free flowing water cooling and lubrication until one or both of the following is

achieved: twenty minutes or an abrasion depth of 0.120”. Time versus depth

measurements are plotted for at least three trials and the laboratory is to determine

and use the “average” line for interpretations. The “velocity of wear” (VOW)

(depth at 20 minutes, divided by 20 minutes) was determined. Abrasion trials

lasting the full twenty minutes made calculating the VOW simple, for tests

terminated prior to 20 minutes due to attaining a depth of 0.120” a similar

velocity of wear could be calculated, but it would be a dissimilar linear

8

representation. Clearly the abrasion plots were curvilinear, best represented by

the logarithmic function. The data reporting we felt most appropriate involved

plotting the data as required by C 779. We calculated the average depth at each

time interval until the point at which a trial exceeded a depth of 0.120”. This

average of trials was then projected out to the 20-minute limit. The projected

depth was listed for each abrasion plot presented, representing the “average”

amount of wear that would be anticipated to occur if all trials tested out to the 20

minutes.

Since concrete with more abrasion resistance would result in a shallower depth of

abrasion at 20 minutes and a lower abrasion velocity (inches/minute), we

calculated an “Abrasion Index” (AI, minutes/inch), which is equal to the

numerical inverse of the 20-minute projected average velocity. Hence, the higher

the AI, the more resistant the concrete is to abrasion.

The abrasion test was performed on the various concrete panels before and after

6-months of magnesium chloride ponding. On the After-Ponding graphs, a

percentage of abrasion resistance retained is reported in the title information,

which was calculated as the ratio of the after-ponding AI to the before-ponding

AI. Graphical presentations of these test results are attached with the individual

conventional test results and collectively summarized.

2.3.3 Long-Term Ponding and Chloride Ion Content, AASHTO T259 and ASTM C1218

After the initial abrasion resistance tests were performed, shallow dams were

constructed around the edges of each test panel with a liquid-tight seal provided

by a concrete joint sealing compound. A foam rubber seal was added to the top of

the dam material to prevent moisture loss between the glass cover plate and the

dam.

9

The notable deviation from the AASHTO method was the use of full-strength

magnesium chloride as sampled from the CDOT maintenance facility on Santa Fe

Drive. Magnesium chloride was selected for use in this study because it is

commonly used as the deicing chemical in the Denver area, therefore being

applied in service to the corresponding concrete mixtures that were being tested.

AASHTO test procedure states that a three percent sodium chloride solution be

used. Test results provided to CTS by CDOT maintenance staff indicated that the

delivered magnesium chloride deicer was a 29% concentration by weight of

magnesium chloride with a freezing point of 0oF meeting CDOT’s criteria of 28%

or greater concentration.

The as received magnesium chloride was added to each dammed panel to full

coverage (ponding) then covered with a glass plate. Chloride ion sampling

required CTS to remove the ponded solution; this was accomplished by

vacuuming it off. The target sampling area was cleared with compressed air,

prior to cleaning with ethyl alcohol as specified by ASTM C1218 for cleaning the

sampling tools. The target sampling area was selected at least four inches away

from previously sampled or tested areas to prevent potential lateral contamination

from previous test holes (holes were filled with a latex type self leveling concrete

joint filler/sealer after testing to prevent or minimize exposure). Rubber gloves

were used to prevent contamination by skin contact. Two holes per panel were

sufficient to obtain the required amount of material for laboratory testing. Upon

completion of sampling, the joint filler/sealer was used to fill each hole. Test

holes were filled to overflowing and allowed to cure before reinstating the

magnesium chloride deicer for the next month ponding. As requested by the

research oversight committee, fresh magnesium chloride was used for each

month’s ponding process.

As discussed at the mid-research review meeting, test results at one and two

months were erratic and exhibited signs of possible vertical contamination as dust

from upper levels of sampling fell to lower levels. Based on this observation, a

10

change in the sampling was implemented for month no. three to conclusion.

Compressed air was used to remove all residual dust from each hole and the

surrounding surface area prior to drilling to and sampling the next depth. The

main cause of variation in test results at month nos. three and four was attributed

to the effects the larger coarse aggregate (¾”) and drilling only two ½” holes,

sampling at ½” intervals. Based on this observation, CTS agreed to increase the

number of drill holes for sampling to five per panel for the fifth and final sixth

month results. The research committee requested that the final 6 month chloride

ion samples on the four CDOT baseline panels also be sampled by coring the

panels and cutting slices from the 4” diameter cores to the required depth

intervals. The slices obtained from each tested depth interval were pulverized and

tested in association with the drilled samples so that drilled sample versus cored

sample comparisons could be made.

Prior to the after-ponding abrasion testing and chloride ion sampling on the AM

panel, the membrane was mechanically removed and the concrete surface

chemically cleaned. Therefore, for all intensive purposes, all traces of magnesium

chloride on the surface of the test panel were eliminated.

2.4 Test Results

2.4.1 Summary Table

The test results of each baseline and specific product evaluated are summarized in

Appendix 7.1. Fresh physical properties and compressive strengths out to six

months are reported, as well as the abrasion resistance, rapid chloride

permeability and monthly chloride ion contents at the deepest interval sampled

during ponding.

The summary table also lists the chloride ion contents of the four CDOT baseline

systems when sampled by coring vs. drilling methods previously described. Since

the asphalt membrane prevented any chlorides from penetration, the adjustment of

drilled vs. cored results was based on the remaining three comparison samples.

11

The test results of 0.005% were assumed to have a value of 0.003%, when

calculating the average difference of 0.010% between drilled samples vs. cored

samples for chloride ion. This adjustment was applied to the drilled test results of

the proprietary products tested to estimate what the six-month full depth chloride

ion results could be if cored and tested.

2.4.2 Individual Mix and System Results, with ASTM C779 Graphs

The concrete mix proportions for each mix tested, fresh physical properties, and

compressive strength results are found in Appendix 7.2 along with details of

abrasion testing and monthly chloride ion test results at various depths. Also

found in Appendix 7.2 are the ASTM C779 abrasion resistance test graphs,

completed before and after ponding. These graphs plot each abrasion trial

performed, as well as the logarithmic projection.

12

3.0 COST ANALYSIS The first step in the cost analysis was to request typical pricing of the propriety products tested, if

sold to Lafarge in quantities suitable for a typical bridge deck. The vendors provided the typical

unit costs, which were converted into an incremental cost per cubic yard.

Typically the unit cost of bridge deck concrete is project specific, depending on shipping

distance, times of placement, truck cycle times, and other factors. We contacted Mr. Matt Riebe,

Concrete Sales Manager for Lafarge North America, for typical “contractor” pricing for their

CDOT approved Class D concrete from their Quivas Street location (the same location of the

aggregates and Class D concrete used in this study). Lafarge already markets Class H mixes to

CDOT contractors, as well as mixes with Micron3 and Caltite to commercial contractors. Mr.

Riebe incorporated the material cost per cubic yard (previously calculated for the other products)

and added typical handling costs and administrative mark-up, to arrive at a comparable

“contractor price”. See Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1 - Cost Comparison of Concrete Protection Products

Product Approximate Cost, $/CY

Approximate Cost, $/CY (Average)

8” Thick Deck Cost, $/SY

Cost % of Class D

Class D 85 85 $18.89 100% Class H 130 130 $28.89 153% Micron3 135 135 $30.00 159% Type K 130-140 135 $30.00 159% Caltite 205 205 $45.56 241% Hycrete-1 130-135 132.5 $29.44 156% Hycrete-2 150-160 155 $34.44 182% DegaDeckMMA NA N/A $99.00 624% Notes : Degussa’s DegaDeck product was estimated at $10-$12/SF; $11/SF used DegaDeck is installed over an existing concrete deck. Cost % includes Class D deck material.

Approximate Cost, $/CY column provides the typical contractor pricing for existing mixes; ranges for new mixes/materials.

13

4.0 THRESHOLD LIMITS OF CHLORIDE ION CONTENT

Extensive literature review was conducted and reported in the CDOT-DTD-R-2004-1 Final

Report, dated January 2004. Their summary of critical chloride contents is listed in Table 4.1,

below.:

Table 4.1 - Critical Chloride Content Levels

Critical Chloride Content Critical Chloride Ion Content

Berke (1986) 0.9 – 1.0* 0.040% - 0.052% Browne (1982) 0.4% (weight of cement) 0.058% - 0.068%** FHWA 0.3% (weight of cement) 0.044% - 0.051%** ACI (1994) 0.15% (weight of cement) 0.022% - 0.026%** Cady & Weyers, (1992) Not Reported 0.025% - 0.050%** * kg of chloride content per cubic meter ** Based on 565-660lb cementitious contents of mixtures studied, and concrete of an average 3,870 lbs/CY Based on the drilled sample data, comparing the six month chloride ion contents at the 1.5”-2.0”

depth, all of the mixtures and systems studied would be in substantial compliance with the

American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318 guidelines. If a drill-core sampling adjustment is used,

all test results are well within these ACI guidelines for chloride ion contents at the depth

aforementioned.

Estimates of the service life modeled by the six months of ponding with full strength deicer are

somewhat arbitrary. Assuming deicers would be applied to a bridge deck once a week, through a

typical three-month snowy winter, each season would result in approximately 12 applications.

The six-month ponding occurred over approximately 180 days, indicating approximately 15

years of applications. However, the full strength concentration was on the panels 24 hours per

day, whereas the deicer on the deck may only be at full strength for two to twelve hours before

being diluted by melting snow. Similarly, more than one application per week may be more

typical of many bridges. Insufficient data exists to further improve this estimate.

Likewise, extrapolating this data to the deicer’s impact for fifty years is also difficult. Chloride

penetration is not a linear function, which means it is not directly proportional to time of

14

exposure. Chloride penetration rates should decrease with both time and depth, as best predicted

by ACI 365 methods. Such predictions were beyond the scope of this product evaluation study.

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Abrasion Resistance

Various Class D panels (without deicer applications) were tested for abrasion at three

different ages, as summarized in the Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1 - Abrasion Index Data and Basic Statistical Analysis

Panel Description Age Tested, ~months Abrasion Index (AI) , minute/inch

CDOT Baseline Panel 1 190 CTS Freeze-Thaw Panel 1 149 CTS Bare-Control 1 174 DegaDeck MMA Control 4 185 CTS Bare- Control 7 172

Average / Standard Deviation / COV% 174.0 / 15.9 / 9.1%

The ASTM C779-00 precision and bias statement indicates a within laboratory, single

operator coefficient of variation (COV) of 17.74% being acceptable. The test results

summarized above represent four different panels, tested by two operators at three

different ages. The COV of 9.1% demonstrates the repeatability of the test procedure.

CDOT panels performed substantially the same before and after ponding, with the

exception of the HMWM panel. The HMWM panel’s surface was softened by the

HMWM application in some manner, achieving an AI of 120, lower than the observed

values for the Class D ranging from 149 to 190. Upon completion of the six months of

ponding, the HMWM panel attained an abrasion resistance of 177, falling in line with the

Class D panels. Otherwise, the Class D, B and H panels retained 80% to 96% of their

initial abrasion resistance after ponding.

15

Micron3 & Type K performed slightly better than CDOT panels prior to ponding with AI

values of 200 and 217 respectively. The integral waterproofing admixture panels (Caltite

& Hycrete) exhibited significantly better AI values (compared to that of CDOT panels

prior to ponding) with AI values of 274, 282 and 364. The DegaDeck MMA bridge

overlay product attained ~2.5 times more wear resistance than CDOT panels prior to

ponding with an AI value of 465 and after ponding achieved an AI value of 571.

The denser mixes (Class H & Micron3) retained a higher percentage of their abrasion

resistance after ponding with retained abrasion percentages of 87% and 96%.

The integral waterproofing admixture panels (Caltite & Hycrete) exhibited significant

loss of abrasion resistance after ponding (33 to 58 percent retained). A possible cause: a

chemical reaction between the magnesium chloride and the chemistry of the microscopic

crystals formed within the concrete capillaries, other wise the cause is not known by the

research team at this time.

The silane treatment tested on the Class D concrete improved the abrasion resistance

from an average of 174 to 238, an increase of 37%.

5.2 Rapid Chloride Permeability

All numerical results of coulombs passed in six hours were grouped into the qualitative

ranges (summarized below) as suggested by ASTM C1202-97.

Table 5.2 - Relative Chloride Ion Penetrability

Charge Passed, coulombs Chloride Ion Penetrability

> 4,000 High 2,000 to 4,000 Moderate 1,000 to 2,000 Low 100 to 1,000 Very Low

< 100 Negligible

16

The HMWM and silane coatings significantly reduced the permeability from High to

Moderate. The AM and DegaDeck MMA coatings reduced the permeability from High to

Negligible (both achieved “0” coulombs). Class H and Hycrete-2 exhibited low

permeability with remaining products exhibiting Moderate permeability.

5.3 Chloride Ion Content by Ponding

As previously discussed, we conclude that the results of testing in month nos. one and

two were adversely affected by unforeseen sampling variables which were substantially

reduced in subsequent months. Chloride ion contents decreased with depth; substantially

concentrated in top 1/2”.

Based on the information gathered, it appears that the chloride ion penetration at 1.5 to

2.0” occurs in the first three months. No significant increases in concentrations were

observed from 3 to 6 months. This suggests that in the future a 90-day product

evaluation may suffice.

Chloride samples from the AM panel were obtained by drilling through the membrane in

month nos. one through five. The membrane was mechanically removed and the

concrete surface chemically cleaned prior to six month abrasion and chloride sampling.

Drilled and cored chloride ion results from the AM panel indicate that the membrane is

effective in preventing the migration of chlorides into the concrete.

Comparison of drilled versus cored samples indicates there may still be issues with

surface and/or hole enlargement variability, in spite of efforts to clean and protect against

this condition. In the future, although drilling for chloride ion samples is acceptable,

cored samples should be used to minimize variability and increase consistency.

However, the cost of coring and sample processing is substantially greater than drilling.

Based on the three CDOT panels tested by coring we’ve calculated an adjustment to the

drilled-only samples that should be considered when evaluating the final results.

17

Industry sources state that 1 to 1.5 pounds per cubic yard (pcy) is the chloride ion

thresholds for the initiation of rebar corrosion. This equates to ~0.025 to 0.04 percent. In

review of the final data of CDOT core samples and the adjusted drilled samples, all

products were effectively under the aforementioned thresholds.

18

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Evaluations of bridge deck systems need to include shrinkage in addition to abrasion resistance,

chloride ion testing by coring, and rapid chloride permeability testing. Concrete mixes need to

be developed to minimize drying shrinkage and permeability (high density, low shrinkage) as a

second line of defense against chloride intrusion. However, membranes appear to be the most

effective method of preventing the direct intrusion of deicing chemicals through cracks that

always occur.

The concrete panels used in this study were too small to allow for shrinkage, nor were any

flexural loads applied that would develop structural cracks. Thus, the acceptable chloride ion

results achieved in this study at depth may be somewhat misleading. Future evaluations should

include the use of or solely use small laboratory beam specimens representative of a standard

cross section of a bridge deck where cracking can be induced and chloride intrusions measured at

the crack location.

Additional research could incorporate beams developed to mimic the cross section of a bridge

deck (6” wide, 6” or variable depth with applicable reinforcing and comparable cover). Cracking

would be induced with center point loading allowing for precise location of cracking for core

sampling and evaluation. Beams would be subjected to 90 days of ponding with and without

membranes. Membranes should be applied before induction of cracks to determine their ability

to survive cracking. These test beams could readily be cycled in a freeze-thaw chamber to

determine temperature effects on the membranes. Abrasion resistance could readily be measured

on the top surfaces of these test beams as well. This should best evaluate the system for its

ability in preventing the intrusion of detrimental levels of chlorides through cracks.

19

7.0 REFERENCES

1. ASTM C 779-00 Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Horizontal Concrete Surfaces

2. ASTM C1202-97 Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration

3. AASHTO T 259-02 Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration

4. ACI 365.1R-00 Service-Life Prediction – State-of-the-Art Report 5. Babaei, K. and Hawkins, N. (1987) “Evaluation of Bridge Deck Protective

Strategies”, NCHRP Report 297 6. Whiting, D., Ost, B., Nagi, M., Cady, P. (1992) “Methods for Evaluating the

Effectiveness of Penetrating Sealers”, Volume 5 of Condition Evaluation of Concrete Bridges Relative to Reinforcement Corrosion, SHRP-S/FR-92-107

7. Xi,Y., Shing, B., Xie,Z. (2001) “Development of Optimal Concrete Mix Designs”, Report No. CDOT-DTD-R-2001

20

8.0 Appendices

8.1 Summary Table of Laboratory Test Results

6160 6160 6160 7005 4460 6140 4940 6980 6125 6140 6160 6160

6565 6565 6565 7975 5240 7850 5970 8025 6865 6525 6565 6565

6500 6500 6500 7660 5305 7910 5955 8210 6850 7010 6500 6500

6540 6540 6540 7610 5525 8165 6385 8915 7170 6920 6540 6540

0.105" NA 0.166" 0.106" 0.123" 0.100" 0.092" 0.073" 0.55" 0.071" 0.134" 0.043

190 NA 120 189 163 200 217 274 364 282 149 465

0.132" 0.127" .113" 0.111" 0.153" 0.115" 0.131" 0.140" 0.165" 0.122" 0.092" 0.035"

152 157 177 182 130 174 153 143 121 164 217 571

80% NA 148% 96% 80% 87% 71% 52% 33% 58% 146% 123%

Class D Class D w/AM Class D-HMWM Class H Class B Micron 3 Type K Caltite Hycrete-1 Hycrete-2 Class D-CTS-F/T DegaDeck

7409 0 2889 1298 4845 2209 3738 2278 2161 1820 7409 0

High Negligible Moderate Low High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low High Negligible

<0.005% <0.005% <0.005% 0.005% 0.005% <0.005% <0.005% 0.005% 0.005% 0.008% <0.005% <0.005%

0.215 0.138 0.171 0.253 0.239 0.02 0.038 0.034 0.081 0.059 0.005 0.005

0.306 0.165 0.413 0.260 0.281 0.496 0.330 0.101 0.058 0.144 NA 0.005

0.007 0.022 0.014 0.049 0.027 0.023 0.027 0.011 0.024 0.025 NA 0.005

0.009 0.030 0.014 0.021 0.022 0.027 0.011 0.035 0.018 0.031 NA 0.006

0.007 0.063 0.019 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.015 0.008 0.028 0.020 NA 0.006

0.011 <0.005 0.021 0.015 0.029 0.028 0.021 0.024 0.022 0.026 NA <0.005%

<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.010 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005%

NA NA NA NA 0.019 0.018 0.011 0.014 0.012 0.016 NA NA

21

8.2 Individual Mix and System Results, ASTM C779 Graphs

CDOT Concrete Product Evaluation Mix/System CDOT Class D - Control Date Cast: 2/11/2005

Fresh Properties Mix Proportions per cy Slump 4.25 in. 3/4 Aggregate 1800 lb.

Air Content 5.5 % Concrete Sand 1180 lb. Unit Weight 142.4 pcf Cement Holcim I/II 514 lb.

Temperature 73 F Fly Ash:PlainsPozz,Type C 135 lb. W/CM Ratio 0.39 Water 251 lb.

30.1 gallons AEA:Grace AT-60 10 oz/cy WRA:Grace27 3.9 oz/cwt

Compressive Strengths, psi 7 day 28 day 56 day 84 day 168 day

A 4760 6220 6330 6370 6320 B 4690 6100 6640 6750 6770

C 4400 6730 6370 6540 Average 4620 6160 6565 6500 6540

Abrasion Testing, C779 Before Ponding After Ponding Percentage Depth @ 20 min. Abrasion Index Depth @ 20 min. Abrasion Index Retained A.I.

0.105" 190 0.132 152 80% Rapid Chloride Permeability C1202 Coulombs Chloride Penetrability

Before Ponding 7409 High Water-Soluble Chlorides C1218 (After Ponding) Drilled Cored

Depth Base Level 1 month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months 6 months0 - 0.5" 0.260 0.368 0.247 0.452 0.179 0.482 0.207

0.5 - 1.0" 0.187 0.334 0.043 0.057 0.099 0.134 0.0071.5 - 2.0" 0.215 0.306 0.007 0.009 0.007 0.011 <0.005Average <0.005%

22

CDOT Concrete Product Evaluation Mix/System CDOT Class D, with HMWM Date Cast: 2/11/2005






A 4760 6220 6330 6370 6320 B 4690 6100 6640 6750 6770

C 4400 6730 6370 6540 Average 4620 6160 6565 6500 6540


0.166 120 0.113 177 148% Rapid Chloride Permeability C1202 Coulombs Chloride Penetrability Before Ponding 2889 Moderate Water-Soluble Chlorides C1218 (After Ponding) Drilled Cored


0.5 - 1.0" 0.11 0.429 0.036 0.023 0.212 0.018 0.0051.5 - 2.0" 0.171 0.413 0.014 0.014 0.019 0.021 <0.005Average <0.005%

23

CDOT Concrete Product Evaluation Mix/System CDOT Class D, with Asphalt Membrane Date Cast:


Air Content 5.5 % Concrete Sand 1180 lb. Unit Weight 142.4 pcf Cement Cemex I/II 514 lb.




A 4760 6220 6330 6370 6320 B 4690 6100 6640 6750 6770

C 4400 6730 6370 6540 Average 4620 6160 6565 6500 6540


NA 0.127 157 NA Rapid Chloride Permeability C1202 Coulombs Chloride Penetrability Before Ponding 0 Negligible Water-Soluble Chlorides C1218 (After Ponding) Drilled Cored

Depth Base Level 1 month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months 6 months0 - 0.5" 0.213 0.348 0.379 0.225 0.074 <0.005 <0.005

0.5 - 1.0" 0.111 0.592 0.029 0.065 0.097 <0.005 <0.0051.5 - 2.0" 0.138 0.165 0.022 0.030 0.063 <0.005 <0.005Average <0.005%

24

CDOT Concrete Product Evaluation Mix/System CDOT Class D - CTS Freeze-Thaw Method Date Cast: 2/11/2005






A 4760 6220 6330 6370 6320 B 4690 6100 6640 6750 6770

C 4400 6730 6370 6540 Average 4620 6160 6565 6500 6540


0.134" 149 0.092 217 146% Rapid Chloride Permeability C1202 Coulombs Equivalent, Range Before Ponding 7409 High Water-Soluble Chlorides C1218 (After Ponding)

Depth Base Level 1 month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months 0 - 0.5"

0.5 - 1.0" Not 1.5 - 2.0" Tested Average <0.005%

25

Mix/System CDOT Class D - Bare Control (no Magnesium

chloride) Date Cast: 2/11/2005






A 4760 6220 6330 6370 6320 B 4690 6100 6640 6750 6770

C 4400 6730 6370 6540 Average 4620 6160 6565 6500 6540

Abrasion Testing, C779 Before Ponding WITHOUT Ponding Percentage Depth @ 20 min. Abrasion Index Depth @ 20 min. Abrasion Index Retained A.I.

0.115" 174 0.116 172 99% Rapid Chloride Permeability C1202 Coulombs Chloride Penetrability Before Ponding 7409 High Water-Soluble Chlorides C1218 (After Ponding)

Depth Base Level 1 month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months 0 - 0.5"

0.5 - 1.0" 1.5 - 2.0" Average <0.005% NA NA NA NA NA NA

26

CDOT Concrete Product Evaluation Mix/System CDOT Class H Date Cast: 2/11/2005




28.3 gallons AEA:Grace AT-60 7.5 oz/cy HWRA:GraceDC-19 12 oz/cwt SilicaFume:Force10,000 25 lb.


A 5200 6960 7800 7630 8650 B 5310 7050 8150 7690 6570

Average 5255 7005 7975 7660 7610 Abrasion Testing, C779 Before Ponding After Ponding Percentage Depth @ 20 min. Abrasion Index Depth @ 20 min. Abrasion Index Retained A.I.

0.106 189 0.111 182 96% Rapid Chloride Permeability C1202 Coulombs Chloride Penetrability Before Ponding 1298 Low Water-Soluble Chlorides C1218 (After Ponding) Drilled Cored


0.5 - 1.0" 0.223 0.477 0.130 0.044 0.009 0.011 0.0141.5 - 2.0" 0.253 0.260 0.049 0.021 0.005 0.015 0.010Average 0.005%

27

CDOT Concrete Product Evaluation Mix/System CDOT Class B Date Cast: 2/11/2005



Temperature 141.8 F Fly Ash:PlainsPozz,Type C 113 lb. W/CM Ratio 0.48 Water 274 lb.

32.9 gallons AEA:Grace AT-60 3.5 oz/cy WRA 0 oz/cwt


A 3430 4550 5250 5220 5670 B 3360 4370 5230 5390 5380


0.123 163 0.153 130 80% Rapid Chloride Permeability C1202 Coulombs Chloride Penetrability Before Ponding 4845 High Water-Soluble Chlorides C1218 (After Ponding) "Adjusted"

Depth Base Level 1 month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months 6 Months0 - 0.5" 0.094 1.34 0.322 0.318 0.530 0.421 0.293

0.5 - 1.0" 0.15 0.510 0.035 0.058 0.019 0.046 0.0001.5 - 2.0" 0.239 0.281 0.027 0.022 0.005 0.029 0.019Average 0.005%

28

CDOT Concrete Product Evaluation Mix/System Micron3 Date Cast: 2/11/2005




27.6 gallons AEA:Grace AT-60 8 oz/cy HWRA:GraceDC-19 12 oz/cwt Boral's Micron3 38 lb.


A 5120 6320 7700 8100 8010 B 5130 5960 8000 7720 8320


0.100 200 0.115 174 87% Rapid Chloride Permeability C1202 Coulombs Chloride Penetrability Before Ponding 2209 Moderate Water-Soluble Chlorides C1218 (After Ponding) "Adjusted"


0.5 - 1.0" 0.230 0.576 0.064 0.135 0.037 0.104 0.0581.5 - 2.0" 0.020 0.496 0.023 0.027 0.005 0.028 0.018Average <0.005%

29

CDOT Concrete Product Evaluation Mix/System Type K Cement Date Cast: 2/11/2005

Fresh Properties Mix Proportions per cy Slump 5 in. 3/4 Aggregate 1800 lb.

Air Content 5.7 % Concrete Sand 1105 lb. Unit Weight 68 pcf Cement GCC Type K 516 lb.

Temperature 139.6 F Fly Ash:PlainsPozz,Type C 129 lb. W/CM Ratio 0.48 Water 308 lb.

37.0 gallons AEA, Brand 4.6 oz/cy WRA 0 oz/cwt


A 3370 4900 6030 5780 6560 B 3310 4980 5910 6130 6210




0.5 - 1.0" 0.106 0.305 0.093 0.057 0.022 0.075 0.0291.5 - 2.0" 0.038 0.133 0.027 0.011 0.015 0.021 0.011Average <0.005%

30

CDOT Concrete Product Evaluation Mix/System Caltite Date Cast: 2/11/2005


Air Content 3.3 (n/a) % Concrete Sand 1260 lb. Unit Weight 147.0 pcf Cement Holcim I/II 516 lb.

Temperature 67 F Fly Ash:PlainsPozz,Type C 129 lb. W/CM Ratio 0.40 Water 216 / 260* lb.

31.2* gallons HRWR:Grace 19 8 oz/cwt WPA - Caltite 6 gal/cy * water with Caltite


A 5840 7140 8370 8100 8930 B 5790 6820 7680 8320 8900




0.5 - 1.0" 0.075 0.140 0.026 0.074 0.044 0.058 0.0121.5 - 2.0" 0.034 0.101 0.011 0.035 0.008 0.024 0.014Average 0.005%

31

CDOT Concrete Product Evaluation Mix/System Hycrete - 1 Date Cast: 2/11/2005



Temperature 69 F Fly Ash:PlainsPozz,Type C 0 lb. W/CM Ratio 0.43* Water 279 / 287* lb.

34.5 gallons AEA 0 oz/cy WR:Grace DA-64 5 oz/cwt WPA:Hycrete 1 gal/cy

Compressive Strengths, psi * water with Hycrete 7 day 28 day 56 day 84 day 168 day

A 5100 6230 6790 6670 7380 B 5200 6020 6940 7030 6960


0.055" 364 0.165 121 33% Rapid Chloride Permeability C1202 Coulombs Chloride Penetrability Before Ponding 2161 Moderate Water-Soluble Chlorides C1218 (After Ponding) "Adjusted"


0.5 - 1.0" 0.101 0.073 0.085 0.027 0.018 0.040 -0.0061.5 - 2.0" 0.081 0.058 0.024 0.018 0.028 0.022 0.012Average 0.005%

32

CDOT Concrete Product Evaluation Mix/System Hycrete - 2 Date Cast: 2/11/2005



Temperature 70 F Fly Ash:PlainsPozz,Type C 0 lb. W/CM Ratio 0.44* Water 274 / 291* lb.

34.9 gallons AEA 0 oz/cwt WRA:GraceWRDA-64 5 oz/cwt WPA:Hycrete 2 gal/cy

Compressive Strengths, psi * water with Hycrete 7 day 28 day 56 day 84 day 168 day

A 5040 6150 6370 7090 6550 B 4970 6130 6680 6930 7290


0.071" 282 0.122 164 58% Rapid Chloride Permeability C1202 Coulombs Chloride Penetrability Before Ponding 1820 Low Water-Soluble Chlorides C1218 (After Ponding) "Adjusted"


0.5 - 1.0" 0.087 0.138 0.048 0.062 0.053 0.057 0.0111.5 - 2.0" 0.059 0.144 0.025 0.031 0.020 0.026 0.016Average 0.008%

33

CDOT Concrete Product Evaluation Mix/System Class D with Degussa's DegaDeck bridge overlay Date Cast: 2/11/2005


Air Content 5.5 % Concrete Sand 1180 lb. Unit Weight 142.4 pcf 142.4 514 lb.




A 4760 6220 6330 6370 6320 B 4690 6100 6640 6750 6770

C 4400 6730 6370 6540 Average 4620 6160 6565 6500 6540


0.043" 465 0.035" 571 123% Rapid Chloride Permeability C1202 Coulombs Chloride Penetrability Before Ponding 0 High Water-Soluble Chlorides C1218 (After Ponding) Drilled Cored

Depth Base Level 1 month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months 6 months0 - 0.5" 0.026 0.060 0.076 0.083 0.099 0.007 <0.005

0.5 - 1.0" 0.034 0.016 0.018 0.015 0.016 <0.005 <0.0051.5 - 2.0" 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.006 <0.005 <0.005Average <0.005%

34

ASTM C779 Abrasion ResistanceClass D with HMWM (Pre-Ponding)

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.130.140.150.160.170.18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes

Trial #1Trial #2Trial #3Trial #4Average Log. Ave. (Depth: 0.166"; Abrasion Index: 120)

35

ASTM C779 Abrasion ResistanceCDOT Class B (Pre-Ponding)

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.130.14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes

Trial #1Trial #2Trial #3Average Log. Ave. (Depth: 0.123"; Abrasion Index: 163)

36

ASTM C779 Abrasion Resistance

CDOT Class H (Pre-Ponding)

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.13

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes


37


Type K Cement (Pre-Ponding)

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes


38

ASTM C779 Abrasion ResistanceMicron 3 (Pre-Ponding)

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.130.14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes


39


Caltite (Pre-Ponding)

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.130.14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes


40

ASTM C779 Abrasion ResistanceHycrete-1 (Pre-Ponding)

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.130.14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes


41

ASTM C779 Abrasion Resistance Hycrete-2 (Pre-Ponding)

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.130.14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes


42


Class D - Control for Degussa MMA (Pre-Ponding)

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.130.14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes


43

ASTM C779 Abrasion ResistanceClass D - CTS Freeze/Thaw (Pre-Ponding)

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.130.14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes

Trial #1Trial #2Trial #3Trial #4Trial #5Average Log. Ave. (Depth: 0.134"; Abrasion Index: 149)

44

ASTM C 779 Abrasion Resistance

CDOT Class D - Control (Pre-Ponding)

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.130.14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Time, Minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes

Trial #1Trial #2Trial #3Trial #4Trial #5Average Log. Ave. (Depth: 0.105"; Abrasion Index: 190)

45


CDOT Class D - Bare Control (Pre-Ponding)

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.130.14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Time, Minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes


46


CDOT Class D - Control80% After Ponding

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Time, Minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes

Trial #1 Trial #2 Trial #3 Average Log. (Average )

Depth=0.132"Abrasion Index=152

47


Class D - Asphalt MembraneAfter Ponding

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0.15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes

Trial #1 Trial #2 Trial #3 Trial #4 Average Log. (Average )


48


Class D with HMWM148% After Ponding

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes



49


CDOT Class H96% After Ponding

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.130.140.150.16

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes



50


CDOT Class B80% After Ponding

0.000.01

0.020.03

0.040.05

0.060.070.08

0.090.10

0.110.12

0.130.14

0.150.16

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes



51


Micron 387% After Ponding

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0.15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes



52


Type K Cement71% After Ponding

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Time, Minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes



53


Caltite52% After Ponding

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0.15

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes



54

ASTM C779 Abrasion ResistanceHycrete-1

33% After Ponding

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.130.140.150.160.170.18

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes



55


Hycrete-258% After Ponding

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes



56

ASTM C779 Abrasion ResistanceClass D - CTS Freeze/Thaw146% After Freeze/Thaw

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes



57


Class D, with Degussa "DegaDeck" MMA123% After Ponding

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time, minutes

Abr

asio

n D

epth

, inc

hes


Depth = 0.035"Abrasion Index=571

58

8.3 Manufacturer’s Information on Proprietary Products

8.3.1 Micron3

61

8.3.2 Type K Cement

63

8.3.3 Caltite

66

8.3.4 Hycrete

Hycrete Corrosion Inhibitor and Hydrophobic Testing Summary

Long Life Testing by the University of Massachusetts shows that bridges built with Hycrete can last more than 75 years before any corrosion would occur to the plain steel reinforcing bars. This performance surpasses combinations of silica fume, fly ash, and calcium nitrite. Chloride Diffusion Reduction: UMass/ New England Transportation Consortium. Concrete mixes: w/c 0.40, Admixture: CN (1 gal/cy), Silica Fume (6%), Fly Ash (15%), Hycrete (2 gpy) Double-ASTM G-109 blocks, Salt Ponding Regime 12 weeks of 4 day ponding, then 12 weeks of continuous ponding. Diffusion Coefficients, m2/sec

Control 1.7E-11 CN+SF+FA 2.1E-12 Hycrete 4.2E-13

www.hycrete.com

250 Newark Avenue, Suite 300

Jersey City, NJ 07302 (201) 386-8110

0

20

40

60

80

Tim

e, Y

ears

Control SF + FA + CN Hycrete

Concrete Type

Time to Initiation of Corrosionby Life 365

Chloride Diffusion Comparison between CN/SF/FA Combo.

and Hycrete Concrete

0

10

20

30

40

50

Control CN/SF/FA HYCRETE

Chl

orid

e C

once

ntra

tion

(lbs/

CY)

Surface to 0.5 inches0.5 to 1inch1 to 1.5 inches1.5 to 2 inches

67

ASTM C157 Drying Shrinkage

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Control Hycrete 1 Gal Hycrete 2 Gal

Shrin

kage

(mill

iont

hs)

Compressive Strength In slag mixes Hycrete concrete is typically strength neutral. In fly ash or straight cement mixes, compressive strengths are often reduced by 5-15% versus control mixes of similar design. The type of aggregate can also affect the strength. Standard mix adjustments (water cement ratio reduction) are used to design Hycrete concrete that exceed project strength requirements.

NY / NJ Port Authority Testing: HPC mix with Fly ash:

4940

3210

1520

6

5.9%

HYCRETE

5%519028 Day psi

17%38507 Day psi

7%16301 DAY psi

3.5Slump

5.5%Air Content

% differenceCONTROL

Absorption Testing (BSI 1881): This rugged test is used to test for hydrophobic concrete. Low w/c concrete

typically tests in the 2%-4% absorption range with BSI 1881 Part 122 testing. Hydrophobic concrete is typically benchmarked at less than 1% absorption. Hycrete performs at the 0.4% to 0.9% range.

Northern California Independent Lab Testing 70/30 Shotcrete Mix .38 W/C Water Reducer and Superplasticizer Rebound = Excellent Odor = Neutral Consolidation = Excellent Stand up = Excellent Set Time = Neutral Absorption = Superior Drying shrinkage ASTM C157

Shrinkage reduction (10% to15%.) versus control of Cement + Fly ash, 0.40 w/c. Nelson Testing, Chicago, IL

Shotcrete Mix

0.0%0.5%

1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%

3.0%3.5%

Crystal

Grow

th

Contro

l

Brand "

X" 6 G

PY

Hycret

e 1 G

PY

Hycret

e 2 G

PY

% A

bsor

ptio

n

68

8.3.5 DegaDeck

73

8.4 Definitions and Acronyms

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AM Asphaltic Membrane ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ASR Alkali - Silica Reactivity CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation COV Coefficient of Variation HMA Hot Mix Asphaltic (concrete) HMWM High Molecular Weight Metacrylate RCP Rapid Chloride Permeability, (ASTM C1202 test) Type K Expansive Hydraulic Cement, ASTM C845 VOW Velocity of Wear

74

8.5 Photographs of Laboratory Testing

Restraining Reinforcement for Type K Cement Pane

75

Test panels at the beginning of 14-day curing period.

76

Application of CDOT-Approved Liquid Curing Compound to Most Panels

77

Sandblasting off the Liquid Curing compound at 14-days

78

C779 Surface Abrasion Testing

79

Close-up of Dial Gage Attachment to Coring Machine Close-up of custom designed abrasion attachment

80

Close-up of Completed Abrasion Wear Surfaces

81

Drilling Method for Penetrated Chloride Ion Content

82

Sampling of the Drilling Dust

83

Modified C1202 Test Cell, with custom-made rubber gaskets

evaluation of products that protect concrete and

Documents